Onias

aa,
Yes, gospel water-walking Jesus was fantasy or mythology, but myths often have roots in reality.
Onias

aa5874

Jesus Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of the world" is not found in the earliest story in the Canon.

Only in the late gJohn it is claimed Jesus is the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world.

John 1:29 KJV The earliest story in the Canon is that Jesus the Son of God was delivered up by the Jews and was killed.

In fact, in the earliest story, it is claimed Jesus did not want the outsiders to be converted so deliberately spoke in parables.

Mark 4 The Lamb of God as Jesus was a late fabrication.

Onias

aa,
The earlier we go in this story, the less miraculous it is, suggesting the original story for the proto-Jesus was a mere man.
Onias

aa5874

On the other hand, Myths are often rooted in mythology

I am arguing that Jesus is rooted in mythology.

What are you arguing?

MrMacSon

the fact the story invokes a human central character does not mean there was a real person as the basis of the character.

The early aspects of the story might be be the gnostics which talk of a non-earthy spiritual character

aa5874

What is the earliest story of Jesus??

If you say Paul then that would be far worse because in the Pauline writings there is NO biography of Jesus except that he was God own Son, made of a Quickening Spirit and a woman and was raised from the dead.

In fact, the Pauline writer claimed he did NOT consult with Flesh and Blood when he was called to preach about the Son of God----See Galatians 1.

The Pauline writer did not claim Jesus was a militant.

The Pauline writer knew NOTHING of an historical Jesus.

The Pauline revelations are from the non-historical resurrected Jesus who made a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV The Pauline writer did NOT know:

1. When Jesus lived.

2. Where he lived.

3. What he did while alive.

The Pauline writer knew:

1. That Jesus was resurrected.

2. Paul saw the resurrected Jesus.

3. Paul communicated with the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings do not support a militant Jesus but Jesus as a God without any known history.

Now, examine the Gospels.

It can be shown that the earlist stories of Jesus do contain more miracles of Jesus that the later gJohn.

The pattern is clear.

The later the story--less miracles.

gMark contains about 18 miracles--gJohn about 7 and the Non-Pauline Epistles about zero.

The Pauline letters contain about zero miracle.

The Pauline letters are compatible with later writings in the Canon.

The Pauline letters are of no use to argue that Bible Jesus was a militant but are relevant to argue that Jesus was a Spirit.

Galatians 4:6 KJV

Onias

I think the miracle-working Jesus of the gospels is fictional or mythical - take your pick of the terminology, BUT I think he may have been inspired by actual historical and thoroughly human messianic claimants such as Judas the Galilean or other messiah-aspirants.

But since history (and literature) is written by the victors, his story may have been rewritten as a means of ridiculing Judean attempts to raise up a true Davidic warrior messiah who would free Judaea from the Romans (to make a long story short).
Onias

Onias

It could be either, but I would first look for a human root for the story rather than searching for a mythical explanation. And even myths do not arise ex-nihilo but usually have some basis or inspiration from history.
Onias

Onias

I think the Paulines are totally bogus and were written AFTER the gospels. And if Paul existed I think he was a psycho. . , and/or the author of the Paulines was either a fraud or a psycho, IMO.

But I agree with most scholars that GMark contained the fewest miracles and the least hyperbole. And Jesus was not even shown to resurrect in GMark. Isn't resurrection considered to be a miracle?
Onias

MrMacSon

Sure. The search is a difficult one.

Sure, but the Jesus story could well be a conflation of several characters from several stories; some less real than others